From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanford v. Higgins

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Jan 17, 2023
4:22-cv-01191-JM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 17, 2023)

Opinion

4:22-cv-01191-JM

01-17-2023

BRUCE SANFORD #258828 PLAINTIFF #258828 v. HIGGINS, et al. DEFENDANTS


ORDER

Paul Criswell, an inmate at the Pulaski County Detention Facility (“Detention Facility”), filed this lawsuit pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of himself and 50 other inmates, including Plaintiff Bruce Sanford. Doc. 1. Pursuant to Court policy, the Court opened 51 different lawsuits, including this one for Mr. Sanford

On December 12, 2022, mail from the Court to Mr. Sanford was returned as “undeliverable.” Doc. 3.

On December 13, 2022, the Court ordered Mr. Sanford to notify the Court of his current address within 30 days or risk dismissal of his complaint. Doc. 4. To date, he has not responded to the Court's December 13 Order, and the time to do so has passed.

The Court withdraws the reference.

Mr. Sanford's claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice due to a lack of prosecution. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Local rule 5.5(c)(2). An in forma pauperis appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sanford v. Higgins

United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
Jan 17, 2023
4:22-cv-01191-JM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 17, 2023)
Case details for

Sanford v. Higgins

Case Details

Full title:BRUCE SANFORD #258828 PLAINTIFF #258828 v. HIGGINS, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas

Date published: Jan 17, 2023

Citations

4:22-cv-01191-JM (E.D. Ark. Jan. 17, 2023)